2016 (4) TMI 1295 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - appeal filed beyond 60 days - Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C - order of acquittal - In the private complaint cases for the victims whether the right of appeal as provided in proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available or the only option for them is to seek leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C ? Held that - the term victim found in the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C shall not include a victim who is a complainant in a complaint case and that the term victim used in the said Proviso shall be confined to the victims in cases instituted otherwise than on a complaint. In the case on hand the criminal case was instituted on the file of the trial Court on a complaint made by the respondent/complainant. In fact the offence is a non-cognizable offence and hence there can be no other mode of institution of the criminal case than by preferring a complaint to the Magistrate. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. As the case ended in acquittal before the trial Court the remedy available to the respondent herein (complainant) was to approach this Court (High Court) under Section 378(4) within the period stipulated in Section 378(5) seeking Special Leave to file an appeal against acquittal. Instead of adopting such a procedure the respondent herein (complainant) chose to prefer an appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court and the learned Appellate Judge either without considering the scope of the Proviso to Section 372 or in an erroneous interpretation of the said provision assumed jurisdiction and decided the appeal which went against the appellant herein (accused). The appellant is right in challenging the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Judge on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. Whether a complainant who is also a victim should seek special leave from the High Court as provided under Section 378(5) of the Code or whether as a matter of right he can avail a statutory right of appeal is one question which arises herein. In the cases arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act invariably it is the complainant (either as a victim of the offence or otherwise) who sets the law in motion. But in the case of other offences under the Indian Penal Code or other Enactments the position may not be the same. In those cases the law could be set in motion either on a police report or through a private complaint. Hence an interpretation of Section 372 vis- -vis Section 378(4) in these matters will also have a bearing on the other types of offences also. The correct law as emerging from the Scheme of the Code would be that the right of a victim to prefer an appeal (on limited grounds enumerated in proviso to Section 372 of the Code) is a separate and independent statutory right and is not dependent either upon or is subservient to right of appeal of the State. In other words both the victim and the State/prosecution can file appeals independently without being dependent on the exercise of the right by the other. Moreover from the act or omission for which the accused has been charged there may be more than one victim and the loss suffered by the victims may vary from one victim to the other victims. Therefore each of such victims will have separate right of appeal and in such appeals the grievance of each of the appellant may be different. Appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Statutory right of appeal for victims in private complaint cases under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.
2. Remedy for complainants who are not victims under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
3. Right of appeal for victims who are not complainants in private complaint cases.
4. Interpretation of the term 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C.
5. Relationship between the terms 'victim' and 'complainant'.
6. Correctness of the view held in the judgment of Selvaraj vs. Venkatachalapathy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Statutory Right of Appeal for Victims in Private Complaint Cases:
The judgment clarifies that a victim of a crime, who has prosecuted an accused by way of a private complaint, possesses a statutory right of appeal within the limits prescribed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. This is a significant recognition of the victim's right to appeal against acquittals, convictions for lesser offenses, or imposition of inadequate compensation.

2. Remedy for Complainants Who Are Not Victims:
For complainants who are not victims, the judgment states that they have the remedy to seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. in the event of an acquittal of the accused. This ensures that complainants, who may not directly suffer from the crime but have initiated the complaint, can still seek justice through an appeal, albeit with the requirement of obtaining special leave.

3. Right of Appeal for Victims Who Are Not Complainants:
In cases where the victim is not the complainant, the judgment affirms that the victim still has the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. However, as held by the Supreme Court in Satyapal Singh, such victims must seek leave to appeal. This maintains a balance between the rights of victims and the procedural safeguards in the criminal justice system.

4. Interpretation of the Term 'Victim':
The term 'victim' as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. includes any person who has suffered loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused has been charged. The judgment agrees with the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ramphal, which provided a broad interpretation of 'victim' to include those who suffer proximate physical or emotional harm. This inclusive interpretation ensures that various forms of harm are recognized and addressed within the legal framework.

5. Relationship Between 'Victim' and 'Complainant':
The judgment clarifies that a victim does not cease to be a victim merely because they also happen to be a complainant. Thus, a complainant who is also a victim can avail all the rights and privileges of a victim, including the right to appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. This ensures that the dual role of complainant and victim does not diminish the legal rights available to the individual.

6. Correctness of the Judgment in Selvaraj vs. Venkatachalapathy:
The judgment finds that the decision of the Single Judge in Selvaraj, which held that the term 'victim' excludes a complainant, is not legally correct. A complainant who is also a victim can avail the right to appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. This correction aligns with the broader interpretation of victim rights and ensures that complainants who suffer from the crime are not unjustly excluded from appealing against acquittals or inadequate judgments.

Conclusion:
The judgment provides a comprehensive interpretation of the rights of victims and complainants in the context of appeals against acquittals, convictions for lesser offenses, and inadequate compensation. By addressing the statutory provisions and judicial precedents, the judgment ensures a balanced approach to victim rights within the criminal justice system. All matters are directed to be listed before the appropriate Court for their disposal in accordance with the opinion expressed in the judgment.